Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2013-02-05TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. February 5. 2013 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than fiye minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Petrillose Properties 2-Lot Subdiyision, 103 Wiedmaier Court. 7;05 P.M, PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdiyision Approyal for the proposed 2-lot subdiyision located at 103 Wiedmaier Court, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-4-1.24, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal inyoWes subdiyiding the yacant 38,470 +/- square foot lot into two lots (Lot 2A is 23,410 +/- square feet. Lot 2B is 15,060 +/- square feet) for the construction of two new two-unit residential buildings. Petrillose Properties, LLC, Owner/Applicant; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaboratiye, Agent. 7:20 P.M. SEQR Determination: Rubin 2-Lot Subdiyision, Troy Road. 7;20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdiyision Approyal for the proposed 2-lot subdiyision located on the east side of Troy Road across from 136 Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 49-1-26.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal inyolyes subdiyiding off a 6.057 +/- acre parcel from the northern end of the existing 68 +/- acre yacant property. Paul Rubin, Owner/Applicant; Sharon K. O'Brien, Audrey Edelman Realty USA, Agent. 6. Approyal of Minutes: December 18, 2012 and January 15, 2013. 7. Other Business: 8. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, February 5, 2013 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,Yvonne Fogarty, Hollis Erb,Joseph Haefeli(Alternate) Staff Present: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Creig Hebdon, Civil Engineer; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting of the public hearing notice. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard -Joel Harlan spoke in favor of building more apartments outside the city. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Petrillose Properties 2-Lot Subdivision, 103 Wiedmaier Court Chris Petrillose stated that he wants to subdivide a lot he purchased on Weidmaier Court to put in two duplexes clustered close together. Claudia Brenner,who was standing in for Noah Demarest, the architect on this project, said she is not entirely familiar with the proposal and is not fully versed in the history of the property. Ms. Balestra provided a brief history of the subdivision. Lot 2 (the lot under consideration)was origi- nally part of a five-lot subdivision called the Weidmaier Court subdivision. Four of the lots are in a medium density residential zone; the fifth lot is in a conservation zone. The property owner at the time got approval for the subdivision in 2003 with lots of conditions, because the property has streams on both sides, steep slopes, sensitive soils, and is heavily wooded in some areas. In 2007 there was some clearing, and whoever cleared the five lots cleared way more than they were permitted to do. They were required to come back before the Planning Board in 2008; they proposed a significant restoration, revegetation, and relandscaping plan. The DEC got involved and required stormwater mitigation.They restored some vegetation on lot 2 and put in a rain garden. The rain gardens and other stormwater facilities were sized for the single-family home, or single-family home with accessory apartment, that was supposed to go on this lot. Mr.Wilcox pointed out that the resolution requiring mitigation of the site was five years to the day of that night's meeting. Ms. Brenner outlined Mr. Demarest's plan for stormwater. There is an increase in impervious surface created by these two structures, but a net decrease in stormwater on the site because all water from the roofs will be collected in rain barrels; if the rain barrels or the driveway were to overflow, there's a swale that would lead any runoff to the rain garden in the back of the property. The rain garden would be increased in size. Part of the reason for some of the setbacks is so it does not go into the area of no disturbance. Planning Board Minutes 02-05-2012 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Hebdon said the only thing he has received regarding stormwater is that they see an additional 2500 square feet of impervious area to be mitigated in the manner Ms. Brenner just described. Mr. Wilcox asked whether the review and approval could be done at the time the building permit is ap- plied for. Mr. Hebdon responded that it could.The Board indicated they would like to see the stormwater plan and Mr. Hebdon's review in a subsequent memo. Ms. Erb said she has three rain barrels that overfill in one good rain event. She'd want to see how the swale in a limited backyard space would get to the rain garden and see how protected the area of no disturbance is going to be if a lot of the back yard is now taken up with this swale. This is also a delicate area that has been dis- turbed before. Ms. Brenner said TG Miller is going to do the stormwater calculations. Mr. Hebdon pointed out that they said only that the measures to be employed still need to be determined. Mr. Haefeli thinks it should not simply be handled as part of the permit process, that there were enough unanswered ques- tions that it should be reviewed by the Board. Mr.Wilcox explained that sometimes an issue arises as part of a site plan or subdivision review, and the Planning Board, after having expressed what they want done, directs the engineer or Director of Planning to make the final determination. The ques- tion in this case, given the site and the absence of the revised calculations and opinion of the Town Engineer, is whether the Planning Board would want to defer it or see the plan for themselves. Mr. Haefeli was concerned about deciding on something about which the Board is lacking so much in- formation. He asked how the neighbors view this plan. Mr. Petrillose said he has spoken with the neighbors on the street, and that they are happy to see the extension of the community. Mr.Wilcox said that PB Resolution No. 2008-13 required mitigation measures on the original subdi- vision site and specifically on the lot in question. He asked whether these measures were completed. Ms. Balestra stated that the map included in the packet was a result of the DEC getting involved, and from what she understands, reflects what happened. Ms. Ritter added that it was reforested and land- scaping was put in; Cayuga Landscape has been working with the original owner of the property. Mr. Wilcox said he visited the site and took a photo of a pile of posts and chicken wire on lot 5 (which he shared with the Board), well beyond where the cones are. Ms. Ritter responded that staff went to the site this fall and noticed that many of the conifer trees were looking strong despite a dry summer. The concern was that chicken wire was wrapped around many of the trees, which would have been dead within a few years they were so entangled. She asked the property owner if he would have all the wire mesh removed, so what Mr.Wilcox saw was the remains of the project.The landscaping company said it was not their fencing, so they left it on site. Ms. Erb noted that there are conifer trees planted on lot 2 that have no such protection. She interpreted the green stakes with orange tags as being the site of the trees that were planted, and on the Slaterville Road slope, the vast majority of trees were not visible. Ms. Ritter responded that the trees they were asked to replant and the conifer trees were only done on the Weidmaier property. The property that abuts Six Mile Creek seemed the most im- portant to be maintained in terms of replantings. Ms. Erb said that according to the landscape plan, they were supposed to, on an annual basis, assure 95% coverage on lot 2. Mr.Wilcox said he had the feeling that someone who subdivided this lot didn't care about what was right and proper and bulldozed the back.When he was caught and came in to mitigate, he did not care about doing it properly. Ms. Ritter stated that he lives in Maryland. Mr.Wilcox responded that that is not this Planning Board's problem. He's just trying to draw a con- clusion about what different people saw; this person was not a good steward of the land and the Planning Board Minutes 02-05-2012 Page 3 of 8 Board is struggling with that. The applicant, unfortunately, is caught up in it. According to the resolu- tion, the owner had five years to mitigate, and that five years ends tonight. Ms. Ritter said she feels that there are a fair amount of trees now growing on lot 5. No one on staff went out and counted 250 trees because of the brambles and weeds growing there. She recommended using a third party to do the oversight the next time the Planning Board imposes such a requirement. She thought there was a fair amount of revegetation and was surprised, given the location and how many deer come onto the site, that some of the trees are doing quite well. Ms. Erb reported that on the streamside lot, everyplace she found a stake, she found almost what she could identify as a tree. On the serious slope up to the road, she found one or two trees, period. Five years after the Board required reforestation, there should be some visible twig. It isn't the applicant's fault, but the discussion is about SEQR issues that include an overall restoration that was required that includes lot 2. It also involves neighbors for whom the Planning Board might look powerless to follow through even when they try to nail somebody to put it back the way it was supposed to be. It wasn't done. It wasn't done on lot 2: there was initial planting, but there's not 95% coverage of trees among those stakes. Ms. Fogarty asked whether the new owners assume the responsibility. Ms. Brock indicated that they do. Ms. Fogarty continued to say that until those requirements are met, they can't be granted a per- mit. Ms. Erb said that she loves rain barrels, but given the limited area and overflow of the rain barrels, she doesn't see how the upper building is going to direct rain barrel overflow to the little rain garden she saw out there. Even if it is resized, she doesn't see how the upper building directs water to it, unless it takes water around the back, which would make her worry about disturbance impinging on the area of no disturbance. She was surprised that there was mowing around areas where trees had been plant- ed, but she couldn't mark the limit of disturbance:whether they planted trees in the area that was allowed to be disturbed or whether someone is mowing back in the area of no disturbance. On the creek side, she found a tree with just about every stake. Mr. Petrillose said those are trees that were existing beforehand and were marked so they would not be cut down. Mr. Wilcox wondered whether the buildings could be constructed without either equipment or dirt disturbing the area of no disturbance. Ms. Erb stated that if those trees in the mown area are existing trees, those trees are now so precious on this property that she doesn't want them disturbed either. Ms. Brenner stated that Mr. Demarest had assurances for the Planning Board that if the area were to be disturbed during construction despite the erection of a construction fence, arrangements would be made to restore or improve the area after it was disturbed. She suggested that if the meeting were to be adjourned for a couple weeks, it would give Mr. Demarest and TG Miller time to prepare for the next meeting. It's difficult for her to pinch hit given the complexity of the project. Mr.Wilcox re- sponded that "if the area were to be disturbed" might be reasonable for other projects, but it may not be reasonable for this project since this area has already been disturbed.This board will want plans to show this area will not be disturbed. Ms. Erb stated that by construction fencing, what she imagines is a six-foot chain link fence; plastic mesh might not be suitable. Ms. Erb said that the hillside is not in the area in which reforestation is required.The part that needed to be reforested on lot 2 is actually Planning Board Minutes 02-05-2012 Page 4 of 8 in decent shape. It's still worrisome to her that the slope used to have trees and doesn't any longer. That's a serious area of runoff that has to be part of this mitigation. Mr. Haefeli asked about item G, submission of a performance bond. Ms. Ritter responded that she does not know the status; she was not Director of Planning at that time. She thinks the area to be mitigated is adequate. Ms. Erb wanted to hear more about the buildings, saying that issues like character of the neighbor- hood are important. Mr. Petrillose said there will be a two-story unit and on the other side, three gar- ages with one unit above the garages.The garages are shared. Ms. Erb asked whether the small unit has any outdoor space of its own. If they want to claim some outdoor space, how can they be prevent- ed from impinging on a swale that's supposed to divert rainwater and an area of no disturbance? How does the Town protect the stormwater system if the residents want to claim some outdoor space? Mr. Wilcox stated that there was a subdivision on South Hill in a rather wet area where each individual lot had swales. The problem with swales is that they look like small ditches; people don't treat them as they would a large detention pond. People might be prone to plant in them, fill them in, mow them. Mr. Hebdon responded that the DEC is saying that that's the future because they want to keep as much stormwater on site as possible. Mr.Wilcox pointed out that this puts the maintenance on 20 owners of 20 separate stormwater detention systems as opposed to one large system that is maintained by someone such as the Town. Ms. Erb asked who will manage this and make sure the facilities stay open and functional since the residents will be renters. Mr. Hebdon said there need to be deed re- strictions to ensure that stormwater areas are maintained. Ms. Erb said that this is a very sensitive area with a very limited area to roam in and play Frisbee in before the stick-like trees that need to stay there are knocked over. She is worried about the continued rollover of people through there who don't understand what's there and why it's only mown so far, etc. Mr. Haefeli said he remains concerned about the capacity of the stormwater system. Mr. Petrillose responded that he has his own landscaping company, so he will be taking care of it and so he will respect it. He lives a mile down the road and drives by every day. He will make sure it's maintained. Mr. Wilcox invited the public to speak. Diane Florini stated that she was at the meeting after the bulldozing had occurred. She was also at the meeting where Weidmaier proposed the whole project.The neighbors and Planning Board pointed out that it is a very hilly site with lots of forest and asked how they would protect it.The owner said it was not a problem and that they were going to have small footprints. Her understanding of the per- formance bond is that it was put up so that if the trees failed, the Town would have money to replant. Ms. Brock agreed that would be the purpose of it. Ms. Florini asked whether that means that today would be the evaluation period to determine whether the trees have regrown and if they haven't, the Town still has the money to replant. Ms. Brock responded that that's the case until the bond expires, and she does not know when that is. She got the sense that they have complied and that the trees have survived.The area on lot 2 where the planting was required has been met. Ms. Florini said the whole area was originally forested up to the road. Ms. Ritter responded that he replaced some plants this year and he protected the conifers with additional fencing. There is a conceptual map on where the trees should be. Ms. Florini requested that someone go out there and verify that the trees are ac- Planning Board Minutes 02-05-2012 Page 5 of 8 tually there. Ms. Ritter said that there are a few big trees, but lots of the trees are quite small. Mr. Wilcox said the issue in front of the Board is lot 2. The owner is not responsible for any potential issues remaining on lot 5. It is relevant and needs to be dealt with, but not to the discussion of the subdivision under review. It's important, but is a separate issue. Sue Gillis stated that she has lived on Burns Way for 38 years; she loves the place because of the very things being discussed, like reservoir land. Traffic and parking have always been a concern. In 2008, residents were trying to ameliorate a bad thing. Perhaps some of that is happening.At that time, ap- proval was given for four lots; two structures have been built on those lots.They are rental units. Over the last couple of years, parties have moved in and out of those places; one person was running a landscape business, and she was livid. It was machinery early in the morning and big mowers, and it's not zoned for commercial. She's concerned about doubling the density. The project proposes a three- car garage and everyone has two cars, so there will always be someone who is not in the garage. She's concerned about the quality of the neighborhood on the surrounding area. She's concerned that since Mr. Petrillose also owns lot 1, he will come back looking to do another subdivision. If the prop- erty manager lives on site, it's another story. So she's concerned with preserving the quality of the neighborhood. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that the proposed lots meet the Town's zoning requirements. The Town allows duplexes in this zone. The Planning Board doesn't have the discretion to say they don't want duplexes here. Two variances will be required. Discussion ensued regarding the applicant coming before the Board at the next meeting. Mr.Wilcox said that if that were the case, the public hearing notice would have to be prepared by Friday for pub- lication the following week. Ms. Erb pointed out two more details she'd like to see when the project comes back. Given the topog- raphy and the area of no disturbance, she wants to see really heavy-duty fencing. She'll also want to see the areas for contractor parking, dumpsters, and material storage; because of the topography, this is a very limited site in which to work. Mr.Wilcox would be less concerned about pickup trucks than heavy equipment. Ms. Erb said that if Mr. Petrillose's plan is to use lot 1, lot 1 also has an area of no disturbance. If that's the case, she'll want fencing there also. Ms. Brock pointed out that if the rain garden is going to extend onto lot 4, the Town needs proof that that owner is consenting to it. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Rubin 2-Lot Subdivision, Troy Road Sharon O'Brien stated that she is the listing agent for the entire parcel.They've had a purchase offer for six of the acres, so they're proposing a 2-lot subdivision. PB Resolution No.2013-005: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Rubin 2-Lot Subdivision, Troy Road, Tax Parcel No. 49-1-26.2 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: Planning Board Minutes 02-05-2012 Page 6 of 8 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 4ot subdi- vision located on the east side of Troy Road across from 136 Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- cel No. 49-1-26.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a 6.057 +/- acre parcel from the northern end of the existing 68 +/-acre vacant property. Paul Rubin, Owner/Applicant; Sharon K. O'Brien,Audrey Edelman Realty USA,Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on February 5, 2013, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Envi- ronmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map - Showing Proposed Parcel to be Conveyed by Paul Rubin", dated 12/13/2012, prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi- cance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Fogarty, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 24ot subdivision located on the east side of Troy Road across from 136 Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 49-1-26.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a 6.057 +/-acre parcel from the northern end of the existing 68 +/-acre vacant property. Paul Rubin, Own- er/Applicant; Sharon K. O'Brien,Audrey Edelman Realty USA,Agent Mr.Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Elsie Rawlins stated that she owns the adjacent property. She's concerned that it's swampland and it's a haven for birds, such as wood cocks, warblers, and pileated woodpeckers. She's lived there for 43 years and would want to preserve it. Mr.Wilcox pointed out that the only thing in front of the Board is turning one lot into two. It isn't yet known what is planned for the property. If the owner wants to build a house, they'll need to go through the building permit process, in which case, there will be no public input. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:28. Planning Board Minutes 02-05-2012 Page 7 of 8 PB Resolution No. 2013.006:Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Rubin 2-Lot Subdivision, Troy Road, Tax Parcel No. 49-1.26.2 Moved by Yvonne Fogarty; seconded by Joseph Haefeli WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdi- vision located on the east side of Troy Road across from 136 Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- cel No. 49-1-26.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a 6.057 +/- acre parcel from the northern end of the existing 68 +/- acre vacant property. Paul Rubin, Owner/Applicant; Sharon K. O'Brien,Audrey Edelman Realty USA,Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on February 5, 2013, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmen- tal Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part 1I prepared by the Town Plan- ning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on February 5, 2013, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map - Showing Proposed Parcel to be Conveyed by Paul Rubin", dated 12/13/2012, prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, hav- ing determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the pro- posed two-lot subdivision located on the east side of Troy Road across from 136 Troy Road, as shown on the survey map titled "Survey Map - Showing Proposed Parcel to be Conveyed by Paul Rubin", dated 12/13/2012, prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., subject to the following condition: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark-lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. Vote Aye:Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Fogarty, Erb AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes Planning Board Minutes 02-05-2012 Page 8 of 8 PB Resolution No. 2012.007: Minutes of December 18, 2012 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on December 18 2012; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes to be the final minutes of the meeting on December 18. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Fogarty, Erb PB Resolution No. 2012-008: Minutes of January 15, 2013 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on January 15; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes to be the final minutes of the meeting on January 15. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Fogarty, Erb AGENDA ITEM Other Business Since there are no agenda items for the next meeting and it's unlikely that the applicant will be ready for the next meeting, Mr. Wilcox moved and Ms. Fogarty seconded cancelling the meeting of Febru- ary 19, 2013. The Board agreed. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Ms. Erb, the meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Planning Board Minutes 02-05-2013 Page 8 of 8 PB Resolution No. 2012-007: Minutes of December 18, 2012 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on December 18 2012; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes to be the final minutes of the meeting on December 18. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Fogarty, Erb PB Resolution No. 2012-008: Minutes of January 15, 2013 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on January 15; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes to be the final minutes of the meeting on January 15. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Fogarty, Erb AGENDA ITEM Other Business Since there are no agenda items for the next meeting and it's unlikely that the applicant will be ready for the next meeting, Mr. Wilcox moved and Ms. Fogarty seconded cancelling the meeting of Febru ary 19, 2013. The Board agreed. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Ms. Erb, the meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ZcXa !(ebra DeAugistine,'-Deputy Town Cle^